Philosophical Links from ‘Anatta’ to ‘DhammaTheory’
1
https://religiondocbox.com/.../73375580-The-philosophical-links-between-anatta-to-v...
Ven. Prof. M Dhammajothi Thero
Head- Department of Buddhist Studies
University of Colombo.
Hīnayāna Sectarian Buddhism
Introduction
There are many Buddhist traditions throughout the
world. It main cause for the arising of these different
sects is philosophical problems that these traditions
faced, time to time in the sāsanic history. This
situation can be seen in the Buddha’s time as well as
in the later periods of ‘sāsana’.
2
In the Buddha’s time the ‘Ātman’ concept
was the focal question he faced
‘Ātman’ was put forward by the Upanisadic thinkers. They
considered ‘Ātman’ is an entity having the specific qualities
of firmness or stability (dhruva), permanency (nitya),
eternality (śāsvata), indestructible. (avināśī) etc.
Kaṭhopaniṣad, 4.3.18, “ na jāyate na mriyate vā vipaścin-
nāyaṃ kutaścinnababhūva kaścit. Ajo nityaṃ śaśvatoyaṃ
purāṇo- na hanyate hanyamāne satire”.
Upanisadic thinkers identified ātman as a thumb size,
physical substance that lies in all beings, transmigrating from
life to life (aṅguṣṭhamᾱtraṃ). It remains unharmed at death,
for it is different from the body.3
Three Signᾱtᾱ, (Mahāvaggapāli Nidāna)
To deny this ‘atta’ concept the Buddha used the
teaching of Three Signᾱtᾱ, (three characteristics)
which is reckoned as the Universal Truth.
“Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā
yadanattā taṃ ‘Netaṃ mama nesohamasmi nameso
attā ‘ti”
“What is impermanent, that is suffering.. What is
suffering, that is void of the self. What is void of
the self that is not mine: I am not it: It is not
myself.”
4
‘Anatta’ and five aggregates(pañcakkhandha).
To denote that there is no ‘atta’ the Buddha analyzed
empirical individual into five aggregates(pañcakkhandha).
The Buddha using a very simple form of practical logic said:
“Monks, this form is no –self, this form would not be
subject to illness. Had it been so it would have been possible
to command, may my form, be in this, may it not be
otherwise and so on. But as the form is no-self, therefore,
there is no way to get from to behave in the way one wants
may it be like this: may it not be like this” .
The same is repeated with regard to the other four
aggregates namely, ‘vedanā’, ‘saññā’, ‘saṃkhāra’, and
‘viññāṇa’.5
There are four other such analyses. These are :
I. ‘Nāma-rūpa’ analysis – the analysis of the individual into
name and form or mind and matter.
II. Six elements (dhātu) analysis. -That is the analysis of the
individual into four primary elements namely, earth (paṭhavi),
water(āpo), heat(tejo), wind(vāyao), space(ākāsa), and
consciousness(viññāṇa).
III. Twelve bases ‘āyatanas’. -That is six sense organs and six
sense subjects.
IV. Eighteen elements. -This is constituted of the six sense
faculties and six sense object and consciousness arising
dependent on the contact between the faculties and objects. For
example eye-consciousness (cakkhu viññāṇa) ear-
consciousness (sota-viññāṇa) etc.6
Notes:
I. These, along with the analysis into five aggregates,
constitute the five types of analyses. Though these
analyses are done for different purposes, one of the
main objectives of these analyses is to bring into
focus that there is no soul, a self in the individual
II. The problem that arose with this interpretation was
‘if there is no ‘atta’ how do things exist ?’ and how
can teachings like Kamma, rebirth, memory, etc.
be explained ?.
III. The Buddha’s answer was the Dependent
Origination 7
Dependent Origination,
(S. Vol. II. Kaccānagottasutta)
8
The Buddhist teaching of dependent origination rejects
two extremisms :eternalism and nihilism (atthivāda and
natthivāda)
“Sabḅaṃ atthī’ti kho Kaccāyana ayaṃ eko anto. Sabbaṃ
natthī’ti ayaṃ dutiyo anto. Ete te Kaccāyana ubho ante
anupagamma majjhena Tathāgato dhammaṃ deseti. …”
“Everything exists:- this is one extreme. Nothing exists:-
this is the other extreme. Not resorting into these two
extremes, the Tathāgata teaches doctrine by the middle
(path):-
Dependent Origination and Rev. Sāti.
“Anekapariyāyenah’āvuso Sāti paṭiccasamuppannaṁ Viññāṇaṁ vuttaṁ
Bhagavatā: aññatra paccayā natthi viññāṇassa sambhavo’ti.”
“For reverend Sāti, in different ways are conditioned genesis, spoken of
in connection with consciousness by the Lord, saying: Apart from
condition there is no origination of consciousness.”
Kaṭthaggi –“If a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a stick-fire”
Sankalikaggi- “If a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a chip-fire”
Tiṇaggi – “If a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a grass-fire”
Gomayaggi - “If a fire burns because of cow-dung, it is known as a cow dung-
fire”
Thusaggi – “If a fire burns because of chaff, it is known as a chaff-fire”
Saṅkāraggi – “If a fire burns because of rubbish, it is known as a rubbish-fire”
. M. Mahātaṇhāsaṇkhayasutta
9
Sensory perception or experience by sense organs
10
The basic teachings: ‘anatta’ ,‘tilakkhaṇa’,
‘paṭiccasamuppāda’ etc. did not pose any problem to early
followers in their attempt to understand reality. They very
clearly perceived them and put an end to continuation of
‘saṃsāra’.
These early followers dedicated time to experience the
dhamma taught by the Buddha rather than to speculate
them.
They fully understood that logical arguiments based on
language doesnot always convey the reality.
‘atakkāvacaro’yaṃ dhammo’ -this dhamma does not come
within the range of logic ( but for experiencing).
This situation changed/logic and
reasoning
About one hundred years after the demise of
the Buddha, this situation changed. Among the
monks there arose different views regarding
the operation of ‘anicca’ ‘kamma’ and rebirth.
If everything is impermanent(anicca) and
changeable, how do ‘kamma’, rebirth and so on
could operate?.
The main reason for this divergent views was
the monks inclination towards logic and
reasoning (takkapariyāhataṃ
vīmaṃsānucaritaṃ).11
Puggalavādins
The Puggalavādins perhaps, may be the first groupwho came forward with the concept of ‘puggala’to find an answer for the question pertaining to theoperation of ‘anicca’, ‘kamma’ and birth. Theymaintained that it is the ‘pudgala’ (a person) whois the carrier of aggregates and who bearsconsequence of ‘kamma’, memory and so onthroughout the ‘saṃsāra’.
They said the connection between ‘pudgala’ andfive aggregates is like fuel and fire. They pointedout that the fire reside neither outside of the fuelnor within it. In the same manner ‘pudgala’ isneither the same nor different from the five-aggregates.
12
Bhārahārasutta of the Saṃyuttanikāya
These Pudgalavādins strove to prove
their new concept giving reference to the
early suttas. They cited references where
the Buddha preached about ‘pudgala’ and
five aggregates.
For instance in Bhārahārasutta of the
Saṃyuttanikāya, there is reference to the
‘burden’ and ‘burden-carrier’. The burden
is five aggregates while the carrier is the
person (pudgala) .13
Saṃyuttanikāya, iii, p25, Bhārahārasutta
“Katamoca bhikkhave bhāro?
Pañcupādānakkhandhātissa
vacanīyaṃ……katomoca bhikkhave bhārahāro?
Pudgalotissa vacanīyaṃ…”.
“O monks, what is the ‘bhāro’ (burden)? five
aggregates. O monks what is the ‘bhārahāro’
(burden carrier)? pudgalo (individual)”.
They also pointed out the Jātaka stories.
Note : this individual will be born and will carry
kamma.
So, they easily found a solution for the problem. 14
Responding to this new concept of ‘pudgala’ the
other monks criticized their view saying that these
Pudgalavādins are the ‘heretics within the ‘sāsana’
(antaścara tīrthaka) because they secretly
entrenched the soul concept (atta) in the teaching
with their ‘pudgala’ concept.
Rejecting the Pudgalavādins’ ‘pudgala’ concept the
three groups of monks came up with the new
concepts for answering the question of how
‘anicca’, ‘kamma’ and rebirth could be explained?.
They are Theravāda Ābhidhammikas,
Sarvāstivādins, and Sautrāntikas.
15
Theravada Ābhidhammikas
Theravāda Ābhidhammikas analyzed the empirical
individual and the world into four groups and named
them as ‘paramattha dhamma’ .
By the term ‘paramattha dhamma’ the
Ābhidhammikas meant that things cannot be further
analyzed or these are represent the last level to which
the individual and the world could be analyzed. In this
interpretation the ‘paramattha dhammas’ were given
more importance.
As a result of this, later Theravāda Ābhidhammikas
admitted an entity or substance which is not divisible.
16
I. Narada Thera, A Mannual of Abhidhammp6,(1956)
“Tattha vutt’ ābhidhammatthā —catudhā paramatthato
Citttaṃ cetasikaṃ rūpaṃ —Nibbānam’ iti sabbathā”
‘In an ultimate sense the categories of Abhidhamma,
mentioned therein, are fourfold in all:—
consciousness,mental states,matter, andNibbāna’
II. Abhidhammatthasaṃgahaṃ - Vibhāvinī – Tīkā, p4.
“paramo uttamo aviparīto attho paramattho”
III. Visuddhimagga. P517, “Kaṃkhāvitaranavisuddhiniddeso”,
“kammassakārako natthi - vipākassa ca vedako
Suddha dhammā pavattanti – evetaṃ sammadassanaṃ”
‘There is neither dover of kamma nor receiver of it. Only
pure- elements exist’.
17
Note:
I. With this analysis of ‘paramattha dhammas’
they could easily reject the ‘atta’ concept
(individual soul) as well as the ‘pudgala’
concept, but it made them to accept certain
kind of indivisible elements, which formed
individual and the world.
II. Perhaps, this may be the what led the later
Ābhidhammikas to posit the existence of
pure elements. (suddha dhammā pavattanti)
.
18
Sarvāstivādins
19
.
Sarvāstivādins came up with the concept of ‘sva-
bhāva’ (self-nature). According to them dhammas
have two characteristics as ‘sva-bhāva’ and
‘kāritra’. They said that the changeable part of the
dhammas is ‘kāritra’ while the unchangeable part
(own-nature) of dhammas is persisting throughout
the ‘saṃsāra’. Sarvāstivādins emphasize the tri-
temporal existence of the dhamma.
Here dhamma means everything. (kamma,
individual, matter etc.)
As examples : clay and pot, gold and chain, bangles etc.
Sautrāntikās
Sautrāntikās introduced the theory of
‘one faculty’ (eka-rasa-skhandha). It is this
faculty that goes from life to life with the
seed of ‘kamma’, memory and so on.
With this ‘one faculty’ concept
Sautrāntikās found answers for the
question of how dhammas exist though
they are impermanent.
20
Note :
I. These groups of monks tried to find answers for
the question of how ‘kamma’ and rebirth
operate within the frame of ‘anicca’. As
mentioned above the Theravāda
Ābhidhammikas, Sarvāstivādins and
Sautrāntikās rejecting the individual soul
turned towards the substantial interpretations.
II. With these interpretations they tried to explain
how ‘kamma’ and rebirth come to operate
though they are impermanent.
II. So, these interpretations came under one line of
thought which is known as the ‘dhamma
theory’. 21
Impermanence and Sensory Perception.
The other question that arose among Hīnayāna Sectarians was : if the things are permanent, how can we perceive them as it is ? Because, as explained in Buddhist suttas, the process of sensory perception needs certain time.
22
“Chakkhuñcāvuso paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjatichakkhuviññāṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayāvedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi,yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti, yaṃ papañceti tatonidānaṃpurisaṃ papañcasaññāsṅkhā samudācarantiatītānāgatapaccuppannesu cakkhuvññeyyesu rūpesu”
(M. Vol. I. Madhupiṇḍkasuttaṃ. P. 111-112- PTS)
“Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. Themeeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition there isfeeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives,that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentallyproliferates(prapañca). With what one has mentally proliferated asthe source, perceptions(saññā) and notions(saṅā)tinged(samudācaranti) by mental proliferation beset a man withrespect to past, future and present forms cognizable through theeye”
(A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya by Bhikkhu Bodhi,p203)23
So, the other question was that when we seea picture and perceive it as the picturewhether both the picture and the eye havealready been changed or not ? Hence, ifchanged, whether we always experience thechanged world and cant we perceive thething as it is.
To find an answer for this question, HīnayānaBuddhist sects came up with differentsolutions.
24
25
Sarvāstivāda Teaching of Moment
Sarvāstivādings said : there are four moments of
duration for things. They are: utpāda, sthiti, jaratā and
nāśa. Eye and as well as other four sense organs also
have the similar moments of duration.
Four moments of duration will affect both these sense-
organs and their objects. At the second moment, sthiti,
organs can perceive the object as it is or before it
undergoes change.
For an example : a flower
Sarvāstivādins explained a ‘moment’ (kṣaṇa) as one out
of one hundred divisions of a time of a strong man’s
snap of a finger.
Sautrāntika Teaching of Moment
26
Sautrāntikas said : every thing is
momentary. Arising itself is destruction.
Hence, things have only two moments:
utpāda and nāśa. There is no moments
called sthiti or jaratā.
“sarvaṃ kṣaṇikaṃ kṣaṇikamiti
bhāvaneyyam, kṣaṇikānaṃ nāsti
deśāntaragamanaṃ, utpādatyeva
vinaśaḥ”
(Sarvadarśana Saṅgrahaya)
27
Theravāda Teaching of Two Moments.
Theravādins said: Things have two moments :
cittakṣaṇa (thought-moments) and rūpakṣaṇa (form-
moments). One form-moment duration (rūpakśaṇa)
constitute of seventeen thought- moments (cittakṣaṇa).
It means that one thought-moment (cittakṣaṇa) is
functioning seventeen times faster than a form moment
(rūpakṣaṇa). So, mind has plenty of time to realize the
form before it undergoes change.
28
Mind changes faster than the body
To prove this new theory, Theravādins pointed out the
Buddha’s saying in Assutawantusutta of the Majjhimanikāya.
It is :
“Varaṃ bhikkhave assutavā puthujjano imaṃ
cātumahābhūtikaṃ kāyaṃ attato upagaccheyya natveva
cittaṃ. Taṃ kissa hetu ? Dissatāyaṃ bhikkhave
cātumahābhūtiko kāyo ekampi vassaṃ tiṭṭhamāno dve pi
vassāni ….vassasatampi tiṭṭhamāno”
(SN. Part II. Assutavantusuttam. p96. PTS)
“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed
worlding(assutavā puthujjano) to take as self (atta) this body,
composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For
what reason ? Because this body composed of the four great
elements is seen exising for one year, for two years…for
hundred years”(A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya by Bhikkhu Bodhi. p595)
Conclusion
Above discussed facts show the evolution of Buddhist
philosophy from ‘anatta’ to ‘dhamma theory’ and how
different Buddhist sects tried to find answer for the one
central question, that is how can ‘anicca’, ‘kamma’ and
‘punabbhava’ be explained without the ‘ātma’ concept.
Though the Buddhist scholars approached in varied
ways the focal question is same. For instance, early
Buddhism wanted to deny the individual ‘atta’ concept,
while Hīnayāna sectarian group tried to explain how
things exist, though they are impermanent.
They introduced many philosophical concepts, but they
were labeled as substantialists or materialists.
.29
30
Recommended Readings
I. Dhammajothi, K, “Sarvāstivāda and Temporality: The Vaibhāsika
Defence.”, Journal of the Post Graduate Institute of the Pali and
BuddhistStudies,Narahenpita,1998.
II. Dutt, N, Buddhist Sects in India, Motilal Banarisidass, Delhi, 2007reprint.
III. Hirakawa, Akira, A History of Indian Buddhism, From Sākyamuni toEarly Mahāyāna, Motilal Banarisidass, Delhi, 1993.
IV. Karunadasa, Y, The Dhamma Theory, BPS, Kandy, 1996.
V. Karunadasa, Y, The Theravāda Abhidhamma, Chapter:17
Momentariness, Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong
Kong, 2010.
VI.Kemananda, Hegoda, Logic and Epistemology in Theravāda,
(Theravāda Nyāya) Karunaratne and Sons Ltd, 1993.
VII. Ñānānanda Bhikkhu, K, Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist
Thought, BPS Kandy, 1971.
31
Thank You